Dismissed

K. Sreenivasulu Naidu, Kadapa Dist. v. a.P.S.P.D.C.L.,Chittoor Dist.,& 3 Otrs.

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026WP/16118/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, lowest bidder and existing contractor, challenged non-award of contracts for manning and maintenance of 33/11 KV sub-stations on grounds of arbitrary exclusion based on non-native status. Respondents submitted the contract period of one year had elapsed long ago, rendering the petition infructuous. The court accepted this submission and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with no order as to costs, closing pending miscellaneous petitions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed

K. Sreenivasulu Naidu, Kadapa Dist… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010747372014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16118 OF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. SREENIVASULU NAIDU, KADAPA DIST., Contractor, Proprietor of M/s. Srinivasa Electrical Works & Contractor, Ananthampalli Village, Chakrampet Post, Penagaluru Mandal, Kadapa District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

A P S P D C L CHITTOOR DIST 3 OTRS, having its Corporate Office at Tiruchanur Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director.

¶12

The Superintending Engineer Operation, APSPDCL, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District.

¶13

The Divisional Engineer Operation APSPDCL, Naidupet, Naidupet Division, S.P.S.R. Nellore District.

¶14

The Divisional Engineer Operation APSPDCL, Gudur, Gudur Division, S.P.S.R. Nellore District.

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly on

¶17

¶18

in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No. 3 and 4, in not awarding the Contract to the Petitioner in respect of 33/11 KV Sub-Station Mopuru -Naidupet Division, 33/11 KV Sub-Station Saidapuram, Guduru Division, though the Petitioner is the Lowest Bidder and existing Contractor, on the ground that the Petitioner is not a native of Nellore District, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to award the Contract for Manning and Maintenance of 33/11 KV Sub-Stations at Mopuru - Naidupeta Division and 33/11 KV Sub-station Saidapuram Guduru Division of Nellore District respectively

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 19974 OF 2014

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 3 and 4 to award Contract for manning and maintenance of 33/11 K.V. Sub-stations at Mopuru Naidupet Division, Naidupet, 33/11 KV - Substation, Saidapuram Village, Guduru Division, Guduru, Nellore District respectively, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL Counsel for the Respondents:V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL) Counsel for the Respondents:P VINOD KUMAR

¶23

The Court made the following order:

¶24

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 16118 OF 2014

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

The present Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in not awarding the contract to the petitioner in respect of 33/11 KV Sub-Station Mopuru-Naidupet Division, 33/11 KV SubStation Saidapuram, Guduru Division, though the petitioner is the lowest bidder and existing contractor as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the proposed contract is only for a period one year. He further submits that since the matter itself pertains to the year 2014, the said contractual period of one year was already elapsed long back. Hence, cause in the present writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and the matter becomes infructuous.

¶31

Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶33

__________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 10.09.2026 BSP

¶34

¶35

136

¶36

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO: 16118 OF 2014

¶38

10.09.2026 BSP

K. Sreenivasulu Naidu, Kadapa Dist. v. a.P.S.P.D.C.L.,Chittoor Dist.,& 3 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Sreenivasulu Naidu, Kadapa Dist. v. a.P.S.P.D.C.L.,Chittoor Dist.,& 3 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases